Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Bushnell 4200 6-24 x 40 Side Focus

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tewkesbury
    Posts
    3,470

    Bushnell 4200 6-24 x 40 Side Focus

    The 4200 has always been a very good scope in regard to the optic quality, but in my opinion, has been let down by build quality and also sheer size. The old 6-24 was a massive 17" long. If you were after a compact high mag scope, then the Bushnell was out of the running. The build quality was not a big issue, but compared to the older Burris Sig' series and definitely by the superb build quality of the Leupold, the 4200 was just not up there.
    I purchased a 6-24 x 40 (426242P) for my CZ 17 HMR as I wanted the higher mag with a low profile.
    Initially I was disappointed as the scope comes in a much smaller box than the old 4200 and did not include a sunshade.
    Picking the scope up it was obvious that the build quality was superb and did have a very solid feel. The weight was down to a paultry 500 grams, so very light for the spec. The 13" length made the scope extremely compact for the spec and the lack of the front bell parallax meant that the scope easily mounted on a set of low mounts.
    I've always found the optics on Bushnells amazing for the price (their Scopechief range is still in my opinion one of the best set of scopes ever made) and this was as good or better than anything I had seen from them before. Absolutely stunning. Compared to a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14 x 44, the Bushnell was brighter and clearer on a target in twilight and useable in daker conditions than the zeiss.
    The side PX is great and more suited to all applications than the objective PX type, especially on longer scopes whilst hunting. The movement is positive and just the right amount of friction to allow adjustment with gloves on.
    Performance wise, the PX was accurate and a buddy of mine has found that he can range find between 90 and 100 yards consistantly. I will PX down to about 23 yards on 24 mag and down to 10 on 12.
    The mildot reticule is okay, but I personally don't like them. The scope on 12 mag gives true mildot measurements, this halves as you get to 24 mag. According to my buddy, this gives approximately 2 mildots at 200 yards for an HMR if zeroed at 100.

    Apart from the Mildot reticle, the scope has one area that makes it fall from my "ultimate" scope position. That being the Field Of View.
    In most applications, this will not detract from it's superb abilities, however, I mounted this to my 243 for a lamping session, and the FOV issue became apparent. Sotting a fox in the lamp and then in the scope was not proving very easy, even on a low mag setting of 6 the FOV was restrictive. Comapred to the Zeiss 4.4-14, the Bushnell was harder to use.
    If using for closer range lamping on a rimfire, and normal day use, I think the 4200 42-6242 P is fantastic given the price. If you wanted an all round day/night scope for a fullbore 200 yard scope, then I think there are better scopes around.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Tooting, South London
    Posts
    3,453
    Nice review Blue and one that confirms my feeling that I will be buying this scope soon. Where did you get yours from?

    Lionel

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tewkesbury
    Posts
    3,470
    Thanks for the comment.
    I got them from an family member is Canada.
    The review damns them a bit, but mainly because it did not work out well on the Weatherby for lamping. I have them on my rimfires and soon on the Airguns.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Eastern Leicester city Boundary
    Posts
    4,273
    Brilliant review blue thanks, been waiting for them to come out . I'm ermin and aarin about one of these (or wait for an 8-32x40) for my 17HMR when I get it.

    Noting your buddy could rangefind between 90 and 100 yards good, how do think it would rate in the 100~150 yards area in twilight or mostly lamping please? and did you have any customs to pay when it got here?
    For NV spotter and add-on videos, paste > some bloke night vision < into YouTube search bar

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tewkesbury
    Posts
    3,470
    Some bloke.
    I'll have a go with it on Sunday for the rangefinding over 100 yards.
    As I stated, for lamping with full bore over 100 yards, I found the field of view a tad narrow for actually finding the beastie. Once found, all was very clear, but for searching for a 200 yard fox you've seen in the lamp seemed difficult.
    For HMR ranges, say out to 130 yards lamping, it is fine.
    I have been lucky with duty thus far. If you get duty charged, expect to pay about £380-£400 ish. I'm lucky as my friend is a dealer for Nikon and Bushnell.


    To be fair I really need to do some head to head comparisons with other scopes lamping. My favourite is a Scopechief 4-15 x 50, this is an incredible scope, but like rocking horse poo to find.
    Apart from the lamping bit, the 6-24 x 40 scope is hard to beat especially at the price (even if HMC do their bit). For general use they are brilliant.
    Last edited by blue; 23-09-2006 at 02:18 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tewkesbury
    Posts
    3,470
    Quote Originally Posted by some bloke View Post
    Brilliant review blue thanks, been waiting for them to come out . I'm ermin and aarin about one of these (or wait for an 8-32x40) for my 17HMR when I get it.

    Noting your buddy could rangefind between 90 and 100 yards good, how do think it would rate in the 100~150 yards area in twilight or mostly lamping please? and did you have any customs to pay when it got here?
    Sorry to disapoint, but 100 yards tops for sub 25 yard range finding. Interestingly it is better than my 8-32 Burris at distance.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Eastern Leicester city Boundary
    Posts
    4,273
    Not sure I follow that Blue. Do you mean the furtherest it will rangefind within 25 yards, is 100 yards?
    For NV spotter and add-on videos, paste > some bloke night vision < into YouTube search bar

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cumbria
    Posts
    10,792
    100~150 yards area in twilight
    Don't know if it'll be of any help but having compared the two out of curiosity, can say that at 75 yards in twilight* it loses image definition a bit earlier than a Zero Option 3-9x40 when both at 9x.

    (* light level where small white targets - screwtops off 1 litre plastic milk containers - are almost invisible to unscoped eye)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cumbria
    Posts
    10,792
    As an afterthought should add though, that the Bushnell is a very good scope and I wouldn't want to part with mine; comparing it with the ZO in low light is perhaps unfair anyway, since the ZO's got a limited magnification range while being only slightly shorter in length.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tewkesbury
    Posts
    3,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Forth View Post
    As an afterthought should add though, that the Bushnell is a very good scope and I wouldn't want to part with mine; comparing it with the ZO in low light is perhaps unfair anyway, since the ZO's got a limited magnification range while being only slightly shorter in length.
    Even so, that seems to be a good indication with the test done.
    Casing point that there is no "ultimate" all round scope.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cumbria
    Posts
    10,792
    Even so, that seems to be a good indication with the test done.
    Casing point that there is no "ultimate" all round scope.
    Indeed so; and the ZO is (imo) in some ways a rather under-rated scope given that it also outdoes a Bushnell Trophy and a Hawke Reflex 3-9x40s in the same low light conditions, which suggests the 4200's comparative performance although inferior to the ZO wasn't at all bad.

  12. #12
    Darren Petts Guest

    My 2p worth

    First thing to notice is it's size - it's very small for a 6-24, much smaller than the AO model and no bigger than your average 3-12x40. Parallax is set at a minimum of 25 yds and sidewheel marks are close if not spot on with the factory setting (can't be more precise until I've put some range time in). Fters will want to know the minimum it'll focus to and after adjusting and allowing enough overlap at 55 yds to focus in and out again the minimum is 17.5 yds so a fair way from ideal for FT shooting. It'll come a little closer and still focus at 55yds but you loose the out/in/out that you can still get at 17.5yds min. Optics are just what you'd expect from a Bushnell Elite and only really bettered by scopes at a much higher cost.
    I purchased this as an allrounder and any FT ability was going to be a bonus. I'll leave it on the factory settings as shooting a 40mm killzone to 25 yds isn't rocket science even if it is a bit blurred. Leaving the factory settings alone should keep the gaps between 50 and 55 a bit bigger and it does appear to be able to split the difference reasonably well (not as as good as the AO model) though not in the same league as my Burris 8-32. At 8x and a 35 yd parallax it gives a similar DOF to my Burris (on 27.5 yds!) for HFT and I've always regarded my Burris as excellent for the HFT job so good news there and should be perfectly ok for SFT too. The extra DOF over the AO model is probably a function of it small size.
    For HFT and SFT it should be excellent but for FT you'll either need a close focus adapter or you'll need to simply guess the distances to 17.5 / 25 yds (not a problem in reality unless you are shooting the Anglo).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •